The girlfriend is not the public figure, nor is her pic in underwear newsworthy.

She most certainly is. Look, I understand you are irritated, but that doesn't change the way the world works. There were dozens of journalists camped out at her place of work, waiting for her. She might not be public enough that libel treatment would be different (a legal matter), but she is certainly a public figure for any journalistic practices.

You don't have to like or respect it, but it's a fact. Pretending otherwise just lands us in this place where we can haze no discussion because the basic facts are not accepted.

That's not a fact by any existing standard, lets be clear. It's a post-hoc justification.

Quote:

"thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."

Considering the affirmative actions she took to remove herself from public after being thrust by someone else into the spotlight, it doesn't meet even a bare minimum to make that claim in good faith. Agency of the figure is a key feature, which you and the rest of media have ignored.

It's also embarrassing that you would reference journalists camping out as a justification for...journalists camping out. Ouch.

Neither article was in keeping with the ars 'spirit' and Ive been here a very fucking long time.

Which reminds me... I don't recall a News & Discussion comment thread ever being so overwhelmingly critical of the article itself as those two articles.

Ken & Staff, a lot of the criticism is from people who've been posting over a decade and have 4- or 5-digit post counts, and are forum regulars (rather than the much much more typical for news stories semi-newbies).I think that's highly significant, and indicates you're at a disconnect from your core users. Personally, I don't think I've ever posted so many posts in a 24-hr period.

Quite a few people (myself included) have complained that, the ethics discussion aside, it's not clear why such pure "human interest" stories are relevant on Ars at all, it being a tech reportage & analysis site.

Between the two article comment threads and this one, there are now 1300+ posts. I'm troubled that noone from the staff who participated in the discussion (Mullin himself, Aurich, Dan Goodin, Ken Fisher -- sorry if I missed anyone) has even attempted to address that specific complaint; worse, there were several posts that implied all the aforementioned, Ken included, saw themselves as doing general-news journalism rather than tech journalism.

Let me ask again: Does Ars still view itself as a tech reportage/analysis site? If yes, please explain exactly how these articles are relevant. There's no shame in retracting them if they aren't, and focussing on the (very many) relevant technical & policy issues.

That's not a fact by any existing standard, lets be clear. It's a post-hoc justification.

Are you a media lawyer? I am guessing not. Yes, it is a fact. And no, agency of the figure is NOT a key feature of whether or not you can provide coverage of a person without consent. Of course, media can't break the law by breaking into her apartment or something. But she is most certainly a public figure, outside the scope of libel at least.

What this whole scandal taught me that it's a stunningly poor idea to have the same username across different forums, because otherwise some self-righteous asshole is going to cross-reference it and dig up all your personal details, including your views on religion and your life as a gamer.

Its getting very nitpicky now, the great majority of articles are tech related, occasionally there's a more genereal interest one, thats all. I wish people would stop being so righteous around here because its taking ludicrous shapes now.

That's not a fact by any existing standard, lets be clear. It's a post-hoc justification.

Are you a media lawyer? I am guessing not. Yes, it is a fact. And no, agency of the figure is NOT a key feature of whether or not you can provide coverage of a person without consent.

That's not what papadage, myself, or even you said. Everyone here specifically used the term "public figure", which you defended. Consent is a separate issue and of course, consent is not required to report on a person. However if you are justifying the type of voyeuristic coverage you have opted for by characterizing the person as a public figure, then you ought to be correct in your characterization. You aren't correct, since a person's agency is a clear part of putting themselves in a position to be considered a public figure.

Quote:

Of course, media can't break the law by breaking into her apartment or something. But she is most certainly a public figure, outside the scope of libel at least.

That's a nonsense statement. What is a "public figure outside the scope of libel"? Either she meets the criteria of a public figure, or she doesn't. She clearly doesn't.

Quite a few people (myself included) have complained that, the ethics discussion aside, it's not clear why such pure "human interest" stories are relevant on Ars at all, it being a tech reportage & analysis site.

We've done them for years. We don't view ourselves differently. We view stories about the people central to major technology news as (usually) enlightening. And we assume people who don't like it won't read it. Yes, we could have done a better job with the payoff on the GF story ("Snowden literally just up and left everyone, even those closest to him).

That's not a fact by any existing standard, lets be clear. It's a post-hoc justification.

Are you a media lawyer? I am guessing not. Yes, it is a fact. And no, agency of the figure is NOT a key feature of whether or not you can provide coverage of a person without consent. Of course, media can't break the law by breaking into her apartment or something. But she is most certainly a public figure, outside the scope of libel at least.

I don't think MightySpoon is speaking of the legality of the issue, (s)he, and most other raising issues on the subject are considering it unethical, or douchy, or creepy or some combination of them. It also seems to be lacking in execution as there is indeed an interesting story to be had from making a portrait of the person, unfortunately it took back seat to the sleazy part.

Quite a few people (myself included) have complained that, the ethics discussion aside, it's not clear why such pure "human interest" stories are relevant on Ars at all, it being a tech reportage & analysis site.

We've done them for years. We don't view ourselves differently.

Neither do a lot of people, now. Congratulations on shooting yourselves in the foot and refusing to own up to your mistake.

Addendum: I'm not telling anyone how to do their job. I don't like the editorial choices of the article and find the attempts to defend it to be questionable. Thus, I'm not going to frequent Ars as often and will not be subscribing any time soon (my sub lapsed some time ago). That's everyone's prerogative, including Ars editorial; they obviously don't have to pander to me or anyone else, nor should they. We all can make our own choices.

Mighty Spoon, sorry, but I am not going to waste my time arguing over facts I know to be true. We have lawyers for these kinds of things. Were we to make the wrong moves, we could be in a lot of trouble and people could lose their jobs. I know what I'm talking about. I don't care if you accept it or not.

That's fine. I'm sure they've told you by now that she isn't a public figure by any definition. No one, as far as I can see, said it was illegal or tortious to write a story bout a non-public figure, but rather using it as a defense for a crap article wasn't a good fit.

And what interesting and news-worthy things were unearthed by all those journalists?

I don't know, I've not reviewed their work. My point is a simple one: she is a part of the story now, and the major media is all over it.

-- Where's the Ars TECHNICA-relevant angle in the two articles (tech, science or related policy)?-- What's the justification for two Ars pure human-interest articles that read like People Magazine pieces?

Mighty Spoon, sorry, but I am not going to waste my time arguing over facts I know to be true. We have lawyers for these kinds of things. Were we to make the wrong moves, we could be in a lot of trouble and people could lose their jobs. I know what I'm talking about. I don't care if you accept it or not.

Mighty Spoon, sorry, but I am not going to waste my time arguing over facts I know to be true. We have lawyers for these kinds of things. Were we to make the wrong moves, we could be in a lot of trouble and people could lose their jobs. I know what I'm talking about. I don't care if you accept it or not.

Mighty Spoon, sorry, but I am not going to waste my time arguing over facts I know to be true. We have lawyers for these kinds of things. Were we to make the wrong moves, we could be in a lot of trouble and people could lose their jobs. I know what I'm talking about. I don't care if you accept it or not.

That's been their response to every criticism of every article about the NSA leak stuff. Aurich is the worst culprit. I stopped responding in the first feedback thread (the one about concerns regarding posting of classified material without warning) because he offered no justification other than "your workplace policies are dumb." Never mind that they're official government policies regarding dissemination and control of classified information (NISPOM 5).

And what interesting and news-worthy things were unearthed by all those journalists?

I don't know, I've not reviewed their work. My point is a simple one: she is a part of the story now, and the major media is all over it.

-- Where's the Ars TECHNICA-relevant angle in the two articles (tech, science or related policy)?-- What's the justification for two Ars pure human-interest articles that read like People Magazine pieces?

Noone on staff has responded to the complaints on that aspect.

EDIT: Apologies, Ken responded with a clear answer while I was typing this.

Beyond that, I admit to be a little weary of all the "see, others are doing it, too" arguments being made

When the argument is "OMG YOU OUTED THIS ARSIAN!!!" then "No, other news sources discovered that information all on their own, first" is a perfectly reasonable response, IMO.

It's also perfectly fine to rebut arguments that such coverage is beyond the pale of journalism or is in some way anomalous.

It is, but then, to my mind, that's a different issue. Some people think that Ars should be above this kind of article, and that's fine, that's their opinion to hold. But getting mad at Ars for "outing" Snowden is just factually incorrect, and saying "other people did it first" isn't a justification so much as it is a refutation.

Ken & Staff, a lot of the criticism is from people who've been posting over a decade and have 4- or 5-digit post counts, and are forum regulars (rather than the much much more typical for news stories semi-newbies).I think that's highly significant, and indicates you're at a disconnect from your core users.

From what I remember, the forum population is but one (small) part of the overall readership of Ars. So I'm not sure that the forum users really qualify as Ars' "core users". I could very well be mistaken, though.

Some people think that Ars should be above this kind of article, and that's fine, that's their opinion to hold. But getting mad at Ars for "outing" Snowden is just factually incorrect, and saying "other people did it first" isn't a justification so much as it is a refutation.

The vast majority of criticism I've seen isn't about Ars "outing" him (because that's obviously not true), but in the fact that Ars jumped on the train and actively participated in it.

Quite a few people (myself included) have complained that, the ethics discussion aside, it's not clear why such pure "human interest" stories are relevant on Ars at all, it being a tech reportage & analysis site.

We've done them for years. We don't view ourselves differently.

Neither do a lot of people, now. Congratulations on shooting yourselves in the foot and refusing to own up to your mistake.

++Clearly the article on the GF is the same category as the rare human-interest story on people like Steve Jobs.

Accepting that for the sake of argument, what substantive difference does that designation bear on your editorial decisions?

The legal designation is a red herring. Taking upskirts of public figures doesn't mean that TMZ, for example, is doing good journalism. They have an audience for sure, but it's a specific audience cultivated by their editorial decisions. If your editorial point of view is simply what is "legal" or "non-tortious", or whatever your position vis a vis the "public figure" designation, then eventually you're going to get the audience you deserve. Which probably isn't the audience you've had up until now.

Beyond that, I admit to be a little weary of all the "see, others are doing it, too" arguments being made

When the argument is "OMG YOU OUTED THIS ARSIAN!!!" then "No, other news sources discovered that information all on their own, first" is a perfectly reasonable response, IMO.

It's also perfectly fine to rebut arguments that such coverage is beyond the pale of journalism or is in some way anomalous.

It is, but then, to my mind, that's a different issue. Some people think that Ars should be above this kind of article, and that's fine, that's their opinion to hold. But getting mad at Ars for "outing" Snowden is just factually incorrect, and saying "other people did it first" isn't a justification so much as it is a refutation.

Ken & Staff, a lot of the criticism is from people who've been posting over a decade and have 4- or 5-digit post counts, and are forum regulars (rather than the much much more typical for news stories semi-newbies).I think that's highly significant, and indicates you're at a disconnect from your core users.

From what I remember, the forum population is but one (small) part of the overall readership of Ars. So I'm not sure that the forum users really qualify as Ars' "core users". I could very well be mistaken, though.

Don't have any inside info on this, but obviously the forum users spend a lot more time on the site and are therefore a very targetable demographic (the days when ads paid a lot per impression to a random viewer are long since over); they are also much more likely to be sticky users. I know a lot of tech people, and of those who access Ars regularly (as opposed to reading an occasional Ars story linked from elsewhere), every single one also reads some of the forums. And of course, there are the paying subs, IIRC ~15K of them -- at $50/sub/yr, that would be $750K annually -- not huge, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't fully cover all equipment and operational costs, incl. IT staff.

Just for what it's worth, I'm letting my sub lapse as well. I may not have liked the articles (I feel they could have been written MUCH better to explain what they were trying to do), but it's the staff's complete refusal to acknowledge that these articles could have bothered people.

I'm more disappointed in the interaction by the staff than anything else.

Mighty Spoon, sorry, but I am not going to waste my time arguing over facts I know to be true. We have lawyers for these kinds of things. Were we to make the wrong moves, we could be in a lot of trouble and people could lose their jobs. I know what I'm talking about. I don't care if you accept it or not.

And of course, there are the paying subs, IIRC ~15K of them -- at $50/sub/yr, that would be $750K annually -- not huge, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't fully cover all equipment and operational costs, incl. IT staff.

4267 users in the subscribers group. That's $213K/year, assuming all of those users pay annually (and all of those users pay-- staff and moderators are also in that group). Which probably covers IT staff (~3-4 people, assuming Ars isn't seriously lowballing their employees) plus some but not all equipment and operational costs.

The girlfriend is not the public figure, nor is her pic in underwear newsworthy.

She most certainly is. Look, I understand you are irritated, but that doesn't change the way the world works. There were dozens of journalists camped out at her place of work, waiting for her. She might not be public enough that libel treatment would be different (a legal matter), but she is certainly a public figure for any journalistic practices.

I for one cannot wait on Ars Technica's next story about Lindsay Lohan's latest rehab soap opera. After all, there are dozens of journalists waiting for her outside of whatever rehab center she's at now.

If "everybody else is doing it then so will we" is Ars Technica's idea of what makes a good story, that's kind of sad.

The girlfriend is not the public figure, nor is her pic in underwear newsworthy.

She most certainly is. Look, I understand you are irritated, but that doesn't change the way the world works. There were dozens of journalists camped out at her place of work, waiting for her. She might not be public enough that libel treatment would be different (a legal matter), but she is certainly a public figure for any journalistic practices.You don't have to like or respect it, but it's a fact. Pretending otherwise just lands us in this place where we can haze no discussion because the basic facts are not accepted.

That's not a fact by any existing standard, lets be clear. It's a post-hoc justification.

Are you a media lawyer? I am guessing not. Yes, it is a fact. And no, agency of the figure is NOT a key feature of whether or not you can provide coverage of a person without consent. Of course, media can't break the law by breaking into her apartment or something. But she is most certainly a public figure, outside the scope of libel at least.

The claim was that she is a public figure for journalistic practices, and explicitly bracketed the legal question. That's what MightySpoon disagreed with. So what bearing at all does whether or not he is a media lawyer have on anything?

The only reference in the entire thread even beginning to suggest that there might have been something tortious about the article, is your reference to consulting with media attorneys. That's certainly not a bad idea, but I doubt they have any special wisdom to share on journalistic ethics, or even more to the point, on understanding your customer base.

I must say that it is extremely disheartening to see Ken respond with simple snark to comments from people who are actually concerned about editorial policy going down the toilet. It's unbecoming and it's unprofessional.

"Everyone else is doing it and that's why we should be doing it! We need to stay in the same game!" is the worst of all possible explanations for editorial policy.

I don't mind that you did a piece on Snowden as a forum member or his background. I'm just sad that they were such fucking hack jobs. You say you worked for a long time on the Dotcom case, so why are you just rushing into traffic with the rest of the hacks this time? Snowden will still be interesting to read about a month from now and maybe you could have done something intelligent then, instead of Mullin's "sad dancer girlfriend" and "GESC anime lover" pieces.

You normally stand for articles with a bit more brains behind them. I hope you just went astray this one time because you got all hot and bothered when you realised you were sitting on the post history of the Most Famous Man In The World and weren't using it. I'd hate to see this become the standard.